About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11
't reflect the law? secretary hagel? >> the fy15 budget we'll present earl next year will reflect the reality of whatever the situation is. i don't know if between now and next february if they worked hair on it, both parties, president has. >> that's why we're surprised when it didn't reflect this time around, but happy to hear it reflects the law of the land next time around. you know, last month, the addition of 15 additional intercepters will be deployed to alaska as reaction to the provocations we've had from north korea. this brings the numbers of alaska to the number of originally planned during the bush administration, i believe, later we deuced by president obama. i have a question to you about this. was the russian government consulted or informed that the united states was considering this decision before the decision was made, and if so, when did that occur? >> the answer is not to my knowledge. it was not russian government who was not consulted in any way, and it was not that decision, that policy was not decided based on any consideration of the russian government. incidentally
will be placed on the record for those who stood up for sensible gun safety laws in america. i think jo put it well. the parents who have come here and the family members -- i think joe put it well. the parent to have come here in the family members, we need to find a political courage with the disappointment in this vote today. this is not the end. there is more that we can do and will do. reaching out to convince members who voted the other way today and perhaps in the next election to challenge them. bring the issue forward to the american people. this is worth the fight. we have got to stand up to bring sensible gun safety to america. god forbid what tomorrow's victims will be, but we know they will be there. we have to do everything we can to spare another family from this agree. thank you. let me salute all of my andeagues, particularly joe the families who have lit a candle. that is a hard, hard thing to do when you go through what they went through. you do not want to get out of bed, let alone come here and argue truth to power, which you have done. it will not be forgotten. it will
and decisions, which obviously affect complying with the law of the land if we have to. >> if i may follow-up, do you have an intention for a timetable for when the department would get back to the committee on it intension and plan for complying? >> i have to look at the review the deputy secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs are leading and preceded on that basis. i don't want an expectation that isn't correct. that's why want to make sure i understand what is expected. as to your questions about overseas and other adamant however and the observation about assessing what you have to do to comply with these new realities. yes his affairs. we have been consolidating and closing facilities overseas the last few years. we'll have a study complete at the end of this year, specific way on additional recommendations of consolidating overseas. should be i agree. i think the leadership, dod donate to the terror infrastructure in this country as well. >> can i just had a couple of facts? there's about 30 more scheduled over the next 30 years in addition to the consolidation. we've bee
of the sequester and it's important to emphasize it is not a one-year proposition is writt into law to continue. given a list of fat and the woulit be fair to say then, riouses security risk basedt right now? >> it certainly is consuming a company intelligence community leadership for what we see happening to the capability and importantly the expectations people seem to have for our having this global insight and that is going to be very hard. if we sustain sequestration through 2021, what the law calls for, as i said in my testimony to the senate in telogen's community and a day before, we collectively have to rethink what people expect from the intelligence community because it isn't going to be the same. >> general flynn. >> i just want to emphasize is a senior leader, just to reemphasize the general clapper talked about, we are about people and we do not want to damage that vital component of our capability. the sequestration provides is no flexibility. not just this year, but over the long haul. our adversaries won't take a strategic pause and the real cost director clapper highlightedvwe
of actions violate u.s. laws and international treaty obligations. this conclusion is not based upon our own personal impressions, but rather, is grounded in a hoe row and detailed examination of what constitutes torture from a historical and legal context. we looked at court cases and determined that the treatment of detainees in many instances met the standards. the courts have determined constitute torture. in addition, you look at the united states state department, in its annual country reports on human rights practices, has characterized many of the techniques used against detainees in u.s. custody in the post-9/11 environment, the state department has characterized the same treatment as torture, abuse, or cruel treatment when those techniques were employed by foreign governments. the c.i.a. recognized this in an internal review and that many of the interrogation techniques it employed were inconsistent with policy, positions the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticized another nation for engaging in tor
appropriate law enforcement resources to protect our citizens and investigate and to respond to this attack. obviously our first thoughts this morning are with the victims. their families and the city of boston. explosionst two gravely wounded dozens of americans and took the lives of others, including a 8-year-old boy. this was a heinous and cowardly act and given what we now know about what took place, the f.b.i.'s investigating it as an act of terrorism. any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror. what we don't yet know, however, is who carried out this attack or why, whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, or was the act of a malevolent individual. that's what we don't yet know. and clearly we're at the beginning of our investigation. it will take time to follow every lead and determine what happened. but we will find out. we will find whoever harmed our citizens and we will bring them to justice. we also know this, the american people refuse to be terrorized. because what the world saw yesterday, in the aft
of retirement and health care benefits is consistent with what is required by the federal law of ups, federal express and every other almost every other corporation in the country it would be very similar. >> it could be different from what the private sector companies are doing. i would like to know, i would like to make that available to the postal employees that i represent throughout the country. >> you are correct but it's not the same for health care benefits. i will provide a more detailed record. >> you are saying the postal service now is operating at 140% of current revenue; is that the number you gave? >> drm laes, unfunded liabilities. >> bankruptcy would probably be where they are. >> finally let me go to something completely unrelated. you testified he wanted more flexibility in their rates in respect to packaging the monopoly on first-class they would have it facto monopoly on the third clause catalogs and what people would refer to as door hangers and nobody has the reach you do. how do you give that flexibility without giving you the power to do sweetheart deals and take the
of border enforcement as part of its broader anti-crime law enforcement. those efforts were part of that democratic thinking and action at the time. they took up the issue of border enforcement in a role that has become a tint to it -- a continuous stream since research. intoudgets that went building the border and building the southwest border capability started in 1994. those budgets, i think when you look back at the record, the official start. taking border enforcement seriously. and putting a border effort into place that has become, since, a bipartisan support it issue. the question of putting them into the border has been a continuous stream since 1994. requests and appropriations, when republicans and democrats led the white house and both republicans and democrats led either in the senate or house overall. this is an unbroken chain and continues to go. we see it in day to day. we will see when a bill is announced tomorrow or whenever, having continuing emphasis on border security and on spending on border security. with the initial budget, we worked on the border in ways
the country continues to supplement the growing and oppressive military capability by bolstering maritime law enforcement to support the claims south and east china sea. russia continue to resist putting more international pressure on syria or iran and display create sensitivity to missile defense. closer to home despite positive trends latin america weak ends to slow recovery from devastating natural disasters and drug-related violence and trafficking. in venezuela the presidential election occurred four days ago. officially announced result indicated candidate nicholas won in a narrow victory. so in some given the magnitude and complexity of our global responsibilities and comprehensive intelligence, in my mind, has never, more important or ursubsequent. i have trouble reconciling this of sequestration. with that i thank you for your attention and now turn to general flynn for his statement. >> thank you. good morning chairman, distinguish member of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify for your continued support to the dedicated intelligence professionals of the defense i
laws that prevent that. organizations -- about whetherns there have been improvements generally within the afghan government and specifically related to united states contracts for goods and services? >> the n.e.a. that allowed the u.s. to cease contracting with the enemy was very helpful. if you had indication with a contractor or subcontractor was associated with the enemy we could immediately stop that contract. i read the recent investigator general of a chemist and's report, how to take that legislation further. i absolutely support that. it would expand that be on the department of defense so other u.s. government agencies could also have the same authorities we have been given as a result of that very helpful legislation, and also to address a different level of contracts in the past have been over $100,000. as would bring it down to a level below that. i do think we have had some improvement in that particular area as a result of that legislation. continuing to move in that direction would be very helpful. >> thank you. one last question. thechairman asked you about afghan inte
obviously will affect complying with the law of the land if we have to. i may follow-up -- do you you right now have intentions for a timetable of when the department would get back to the committee on its intention and plan for complying -- >> this is evolving and i have that they the review are leading, and then we will proceed on that basis. i don't want an expectation here that isn't correct. that is why wanted to make sure. -- i understand what is expected. as to your bastions about overseas, overhead, and the other observations you made about how we are assessing what we have to do to comply with these new realities. consolidatingeen and closing facilities overseas for the last few years. we will have a study complete by the end of this month -- this on additional recommendations on closing facilities and consolidating overseas. so, yes, that has been ongoing. i and thee time, president think, the leadership of the doj, but we also need to look at our infrastructure in this country as well. >> can i have a couple of facts -- we transferred more than 100 sites back to our allies since
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)